Mr. Religion and His Calvinistic Nonsense

[nikolai_42]

Why do you just flat out refuse to even address the fact that according to John 20:30-31 believing results in faith?

By oversimplifying and then restating, one changes meaning.

EDIT : Let me add that AMR is arguing mechanics where you are arguing form. That is, God has commanded everyone everwhere to repent in the same way He commanded Israel to follow the Ten Commandments. They couldn't and so He promised to give them a new heart and put His law in their hearts. Everyone (Jesus said) that is taught of God comes to Him. So while the command may go out to everyone, unless you believe the Law is written on everyone's heart without exception, then you have to believe God commanded something that man is not (of himself) able to fulfill. But that doesn't prevent Him commanding it - because He works (in the heart) to bring it about. AMR says the "can" is available only to the believer. You say all people "can" without any interference from God. The cause and effect you cite is only external (like the command).

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

If you do not know what Calvin stands for or not, how can you be against him?

Why don't you read Calvin's Institutes and educate yourself in his beliefs, before you make a career out of (blindly) opposing him?

I dare you . . .

For you, I will toss 2 scriptures your way that are not even on level with the Calvinism killers.

Let me be blunt towards you. The only Calvinism that has ever been in the Bible was called the "Geneva Bible" and that was because Calvin Himself wrote his extra biblical assertions in the margins.

1 John 2:27 and Ephesians 4:14

Context of assertion... Calvin is a man and reformed theology is built on the doctrines of men, one ink stroke at a time. How do you wiggle away from the meanings of these scriptures without ascribing Deity to Calvin or a Prophetic gift?

Interpretation of scripture is a form of prophesying. How is Calvin not a hinderance to these scriptures and why does scripture promise that we need no man to teach us, but Calvinism proclaims otherwise?

#And your answer in direct response to my simple charge against Calvinism is?

 

[Nang]

Calvin is the word for a human doctrine that is easily disarmed in 5 simple points of scripture. No human is infallible. The Son of Man is infallible, but He is the Son of God and fully God.

Back to the point.... awaiting [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION] 's response.

You put far too much faith in [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION]s ability to string scripture together to support Calvinist doctrine. Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing every day and I think it's easy to see where I'm going with this.

You are going nowhere, with this, for you do not know what you are talking about. You have not studied Calvin's work, and you argue against TULIP in general, without even attempting to comprehend and address the many doctrines encapsulated therein.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

You are going nowhere, with this, for you do not know what you are talking about. You have not studied Calvin's work, and you argue against TULIP in general, without even attempting to comprehend and address the many doctrines encapsulated therein.

I will edit add this: I have studied Calvin's work and life. Much of my ammunition is drawn from it.

Even now, your inability to answer scripture with anything but doctrine validates my claim.

My point?

If you do not know what Calvin stands for or not, how can you be against him?

Why don't you read Calvin's Institutes and educate yourself in his beliefs, before you make a career out of (blindly) opposing him?

I dare you . . .

For you, I will toss 2 scriptures your way that are not even on level with the Calvinism killers.

Let me be blunt towards you. The only Calvinism that has ever been in the Bible was called the "Geneva Bible" and that was because Calvin Himself wrote his extra biblical assertions in the margins.

1 John 2:27 and Ephesians 4:14

Context of assertion... Calvin is a man and reformed theology is built on the doctrines of men, one ink stroke at a time. How do you wiggle away from the meanings of these scriptures without ascribing Deity to Calvin or a Prophetic gift?

Interpretation of scripture is a form of prophesying. How is Calvin not a hinderance to these scriptures and why does scripture promise that we need no man to teach us, but Calvinism proclaims otherwise?

#And your answer in direct response to my simple charge against Calvinism is?

#Twice unanswered

 

[Nang]

The only Calvinism that has ever been in the Bible was called the "Geneva Bible"

Have you ever read a Geneva Bible? Or seen one? Or touched one?

Context of assertion... Calvin is a man and reformed theology is built on the doctrines of men, one ink stroke at a time.

And you are a man, who posts assertions on TOL, attempting to destroy orthodox Christian beliefs, one keyboard stroke at a time . . and we are supposed to be impressed? Bah!

1 John 2:27 and Ephesians 4:14 How do you wiggle away from the meanings of these scriptures without ascribing Deity to Calvin or a Prophetic gift?

Neither myself, or any Reformer ("Calvinist") I know, ascribes deity to John Calvin. There is no reason for me to wriggle away from a single word spoken by God. Matthew 4:4

And there is no reason for anyone to accept your interpretations, for they are not presented with any linguistic or theological education, or moral integrity.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Have you ever read a Geneva Bible? Or seen one? Or touched one?



And you are a man, who posts assertions on TOL, attempting to destroy orthodox Christian beliefs, one keyboard stroke at a time . . and we are supposed to be impressed? Bah!



Neither myself, or any Reformer ("Calvinist") I know, ascribes deity to John Calvin. There is no reason for me to wriggle away from a single word spoken by God. Matthew 4:4

And there is no reason for anyone to accept your interpretations, for they are not presented with any linguistic or theological education, or moral integrity.

In response to your Geneva Bible question, yes I have, and studied it as well.

I do not speak on matters that I don't understand, though I understand that I learn new things every day.

Back to the point...

So you have clearly admitted that John Calvin is a fallible man. Why "Calvin"ism?

One more point.... In the Geneva bible, John 3:16 reads...

John 3:16 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

16 [a]For God so loveth the world, that he hath given his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Footnotes:

John 3:16 Nothing else but the free love of the Father, is the beginning of our salvation, and Christ is he in whom our righteousness and salvation is resident: and faith is the instrument or mean whereby we apprehend it, and life everlasting is that which is set before us to apprehend.

John 3:16 It is not all one to believe in a thing, and to believe of a thing, for we may not believe (in anything) save only in God, but we may believe (of anything) whatsoever, this saith Nazianzene in his oration of the Spirit.

- why does Calvin even fail to attempt to redefine "whosoever" here? Because he has redefined the measure of God's Love in previous and following notes. This is why.

 

[Nang]

Why "Calvin"ism?

I don't know . . why don't you tell me, for you are the one who uses the term repeatedly.

I am a Reformer, who holds to Sola Scriptura and the historic Protestant Creeds and Confessions. I respect, enjoy, and study the works of Calvin, along with the works of many other of the Reformed church fathers.

I am not a part of any "ism."

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I don't know . . why don't you tell me, for you are the one who uses the term repeatedly.

I am a Reformer, who holds to Sola Scriptura and the historic Protestant Creeds and Confessions. I respect, enjoy, and study the works of Calvin, along with the works of many other of the Reformed church fathers.

I am not a part of any "ism."

Then you are now saying that reformed writers aren't the final say in scripture and perhaps as I, you have much more to learn from studying scripture than the fallible works of men?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Calvinism holds to Spiritual Israel, as per Calvin's Covenant Theology- a corollary theology to the Catholic Church's Covenantal belief.

If the Body of Christ is "spiritual Israel" then why does Paul write this:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:25-27).​

If the Body of Christ is "spiritual Israel" then what Paul says about "all Israel" being saved in the future makes no sense. That is because all those in the Body of Christ are already saved!

 

[Nang]

One more point.... In the Geneva bible, John 3:16 reads...

John 3:16 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

16 [a]For God so loveth the world, that he hath given his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Footnotes:

John 3:16 Nothing else but the free love of the Father, is the beginning of our salvation, and Christ is he in whom our righteousness and salvation is resident: and faith is the instrument or mean whereby we apprehend it, and life everlasting is that which is set before us to apprehend.

John 3:16 It is not all one to believe in a thing, and to believe of a thing, for we may not believe (in anything) save only in God, but we may believe (of anything) whatsoever, this saith Nazianzene in his oration of the Spirit.

- why does Calvin even fail to attempt to redefine "whosoever" here? Because he has redefined the measure of God's Love in previous and following notes. This is why.

The context of John 3:16 is what Calvin emphasizes; that being, regeneration to new life through the power of the Holy Spirit. Heavenly Truth, introduced beginning in John 3:1-8.

IOW's, the reference to "whosoever" quantifies the revelation of salvation that comes only from above (and not from human decisions), and qualifies the condemnation of those who do not believe, in vss 18-20

The application is universal/equal and the term did not need redefining.

 

[Eagles Wings]

Then you are now saying that reformed writers aren't the final say in scripture and perhaps as I, you have much more to learn from studying scripture than the fallible works of men?

She's never said otherwise, nor would any Reformer.

Sola Scriptura!

"Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice." (Wiki)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

By oversimplifying and then restating, one changes meaning.

Are you saying that I changed the meaning of John 20:30-31?

If it doesn't mean that it is believing which results in life then it must have another meaning.

Tell us what that meaning is.

Thanks!

 

[Nang]

Then you are now saying that reformed writers aren't the final say in scripture and perhaps as I, you have much more to learn from studying scripture than the fallible works of men?

For all the years I have been present on TOL, I have never changed my motto, which is Matthew 4:4.

Any theological works I study, must conform to the Holy Scriptures, to be believed and respected by myself.

Why you would infer otherwise, is beyond me . . .

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

For all the years I have been present on TOL, I have never changed my motto, which is Matthew 4:4.

Any theological works I study, must conform to the Holy Scriptures, to be believed and respected by myself.

Why you would infer otherwise, is beyond me . . .

This is a new way of speaking for you.

So you would agree with me that John Calvin's "theological perspective" is merely one man's ideas that are fallible?

 

[john w]

I am a Reformer, who holds to Sola Scriptura and the historic Protestant Creeds and Confessions. I respect, enjoy, and study the works of Calvin, along with the works of many other of the Reformed church fathers.

I am not a part of any "ism."

Corrected it for you:

"I am a Reformer, who holds to Sola my "church" SOF.

I am a part of Clavinism."



No charge.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The context of John 3:16 is what Calvin emphasizes; that being, regeneration to new life through the power of the Holy Spirit. Heavenly Truth, introduced beginning in John 3:1-8.

IOW's, the reference to "whosoever" quantifies the revelation of salvation that comes only from above (and not from human decisions), and qualifies the condemnation of those who do not believe, in vss 18-20

The application is universal/equal and the term did not need redefining.

I know where we actually differ in our understanding of this, but you are replying in ways that are more gentle and peaceful. I recognize an effort on your part that receives notice.

I appreciate your clear articulation of this matter and how you understand it.

 

[Crucible]

If the Body of Christ is "spiritual Israel" then what Paul says about "all Israel" being saved in the future makes no sense. That is because all those in the Body of Christ are already saved!

:doh:

The Israelites of the Apostle's time do not even exist anymore. The tradition, which was carried on in rejection of Christ, is still alive- but they are nothing more than the Muslims. God's promises to those people were fulfilled, Israel is Christ's Body.

 

[nikolai_42]

Are you saying that I changed the meaning of John 20:30-31?

If it doesn't mean that it is believing which results in life then it must have another meaning.

Tell us what that meaning is.

Thanks!

No. I'm saying you took what was being asserted by AMR and oversimplified it (which is evidenced by the question - in that you believe it undermines his entire position) because that's the way you read it. You have an assumption about the role of faith that is informed by (among other things) one passage. Not that it is the only passage, but that is the passage you are using to address the entirety of AMR's understanding. Since his belief involves linked ideas (that can't all stand independently - if one fails, the whole system fails, but by the same token one cannot fail on its own because it is interconnected), your restatement of his view to deal with a single scripture necessarily omits the full (interconnected) system of belief. By that I don't mean all of Calvinism, but the complete understanding of regeneration (referring back to his early post in the original thread wherein he defines his terms).

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

:doh:

The Israelites of the Apostle's time do not even exist anymore. The tradition, which was carried on in rejection of Christ, is still alive- but they are nothing more than the Muslims. God's promises to those people were fulfilled, Israel is Christ's Body.

Seriously? You're going to go with that against all scripture? Wow!!